[tarunmuvvala]

Thanks for taking the initiative. there is very little awareness and implication of this.

I am not a developer, but I understand how generative AI leveraging your work to make it easier for someone else.

A similar thing needs to be done for images too.

[s-lambert]

>I am not a developer, but I understand how generative AI leveraging your work to make it easier for someone else.

To me this sounds like it's antithetical to open source software because the point of making software open source is so that other people can leverage your work. It shouldn't matter if it's done through generative AI or through a human's brain.

[heavyset_go]

> the point of making software open source is so that other people can leverage your work

The point is that other people can leverage your work under the terms you distribute them under. For the vast majority of open source licenses, that means giving attribution and including the copyright notice and license when distributing the source code or its derivatives. For others, it means all of that and releasing derivatives under the same license.

If developers wanted to distribute their code under licenses with different terms, they would have, but they didn't.

[sanxiyn]

Why shouldn't it matter? Many open source licenses require attribution, so it is reasonable to think one point of making software open source is to get attribution. Generative AI prevents getting attribution, so it matters whether it is through generative AI or human brain.

[lost_tourist]

I think the issues is making the work usable by people for free and for a fee paid to microsoft because (mostly) due to open source licenses that help keep the software free and not a boon only to huge corporations. This seems like a sneaky way of getting around the licensing. Maybe GPL4 that covers usage by AI models